YTread Logo
YTread Logo

OJ Simpson Trial - January 24th, 1995 - Part 1

May 04, 2020
very good good morning Council very good again on the record in the matter Simpson mr. Simpson is again present in court with his lawyer, Mr. Mr. Almond Shapiro Mr. Cochran Mr. Douglas Mr. People of Bailey represented by Miss Clark mr. Darden and Mr. Hodgman, all right, counsel, we just have a few things to take care of before we get to our opening statement. or not, the court was going to allow them to watch the Super Bowl this weekend and I have indicated that they can and that we would arrange their visiting hours accordingly, so I understand there is no comment on that, that's fine ma'am.
oj simpson trial   january 24th 1995   part 1
Robberson, could you create a file for jury notes? Please, okay. The first issue to be resolved is the defense's motion to allow Mr. Simpson to address the jury briefly during the course of defense counsel's opening statements. Very well, certainly, Your Honor, the first objection raised by the people is that this has never been done before and we have located at least two precedents in California where it has been done before the first wine in probably the first century case of the century which was the Clarence Darrow

trial

here in Los Angeles forgery forgery despite the fact that Mr.
oj simpson trial   january 24th 1995   part 1

More Interesting Facts About,

oj simpson trial january 24th 1995 part 1...

Darrow was represented by the eminent attorney Rogers, he was allowed to

part

icipate directly in the presentation of the opening statement and closing argument before the jury. The second example occurred in 1972 at the Angela Davis

trial

in Northern California in which she, although she was represented by counsel. she was also allowed to present opening remarks to the jury, so it's not about proposing something that's never been done before so there's no precedent, the second objection people raise is that they'll be disenfranchised. cross-examination and I think you really misunderstand what is being proposed here, first of all, mr.
oj simpson trial   january 24th 1995   part 1
Simpson will not testify and the standard instruction given to the jury regarding all opening statements by attorneys that they are not evidence and should not be considered evidence by the jury will certainly apply to Mr. Simpson as well, but what is being proposed It's not really an introduction in the traditional form of an opening statement, what we're simply proposing is that Mr. Simpson be allowed to introduce himself to the jurors to introduce the defense team to the attorneys representing him and simply reiterate his statement. of innocence now, of course, the prosecution has no opportunity to cross-examine a statement and we think that would be quite appropriate. for the jury to hear the plea of ​​not guilty that launches this trial straight from the defendant's lips, this isn't really that remarkable of a request, what it really seeks to do is focus the jury's attention back where it belongs in the midst of all this riot and that is on the defendant who is on trial to remind you that what is really at stake in this trial is the freedom of a man we want you to see who that man is we want you to hear from him very briefly in terms of introducing himself , presenting counsel and reiterating your argument, the second

part

of the motion simply addresses a physical demonstration that is routinely done in trials that are routinely conducted by the prosecution. as well as the defense and, again, it would not involve any testimony, but simply a preview of the evidence that will be presented in the course of the trial.
oj simpson trial   january 24th 1995   part 1
I was told that such a preview would simply be of the defendant's knees in regards to certain surgeries he has undergone. as a result of his athletic career is correct yes that is fine and has contemplated the safety wishes of the Sheriff Department having their sheriff very close to Mr. Simpson this is done and how would you do it in a way that would not convey a necessarily negative message to the jury, well that was the reason we brought this up ahead of time, your honor, so that proper preparation could be made to post a deputy on this side of the courtroom if necessary, but it simply implies for him to walk up and down the courtroom, and unfortunately the logical place to do that is next to the prosecution's attorney, so we also have that proximity issue, have you looked at that? the logistics of our pitifully small courtroom play nice if the prosecution wants to just switch sides with us, we'd be happy to move to this side of the courtroom, but you already asked.
I don't think they have any. I'm worried about being around the defendant, well I just had concerns that as a safety concern Alton is fine. Thank you, the lawyer Shokran has discussed the problem with the bailiff and the other. No problem with the bailiff being around, well mr. Simpson addresses a jury or shows its need or I'll listen to the people, thank you and good morning Your Honor, first of all, this is not an opportunity that counsel is proposing, it is simply an attempt to capitalize on any star appeal from the defendants. that he currently has with the jury. and getting you to get very close to them to impress them what is the probative value of a scar what does it prove to this jury in terms of your physical capabilities the night of June 12, 1994 proves nothing in fact we all know that on the morning of June 12, he was playing golf, we also know that weeks before the murder he made an exercise video, so the probative value of that scar is null and the deceptive nature of presenting that scar to the jury is a great inference that the defense will try to draw part of that scar is that he was incapable of certain physical acts if that's what they intend to present that's fine let them present testimony that is capable of cross-examination but has If the defendant essentially testifies before the jury without taking the witness stand and being cross-examined it is inappropriate.
The cases in which defendants have been able to address the jury. An opening statement on previous occasions. They have been cases in which the defendant was acting appropriately. this defendant is not in pro curve he is represented by many lawyers if he wishes to testify before this jury then let him do so as all witnesses do on the witness stand and be subject to full and complete cross examination the case law is completely in favor of the position of the people in this regard Pueblo vs. Pérez 216 Cal apps third 1346 in which the defendant requested that he be allowed to display his tattoos without being sworn to or testifying, the court rejected his request and ruled that the display of the tattoo would be testimonial if it were offering to impugn the testimony of an undercover officer and essentially that is what the injuries you are now proposing to show to the jury are b offering to prove that you could not in fact commit certain acts that you are accused of committing their testimonial nature make no mistake about what the purpose of showing the scar is or whether he talks or shows the jury what he can and can't do it will give you the ability to hobble up to the jury box, walk up to the jury and try to impress them with your physical presence that there is nothing appropriate and that there is no legal benefit to this in terms of what is appropriate in a court of law. the law if the defendant wanted to testify that's fine but to do this and then protect yourself from cross examination say don't ask me any questions I just want to go up and show you something I want you to draw inferences from this I want you to take evidence of this without being subject to cross examination it is completely inappropriate, people would have no right to do that because there would have to be an established basis, people v.
Perez make that very clear, they indicated that it would also be irrelevant as demonstrative evidence, which is what the defense claims it is proposing here, even though people dispute it and it really is a testimonial nature type of thing that they are proposing however even if it is demonstrative the court and Perez ruled that because the defendant had not laid grounds for the admission of evidence he also refused Appropriately in this case what the defendant intends to do requires his presence on the witness stand or some testimony. onio from the witness stand to establish a basis for your admission simply showing something to the jury without any evidentiary basis gives them nothing reliable and nothing of probative value is just a blatant attempt to impress the jury with your charisma and star appeal that is not a appropriate vehicle in the opening statement let me also note that the persons v.
Wong case held similarly to the persons v. Wong case, the trial court indicated that it was inappropriate for the defendant to display his weapons to the jury without first taking the oath as witness in that case 35 cal apps 3rd eight twelve defendant in that case wanted to indicate he was not an addict had no prints on his arms trial court refused to allow him to do so unless he underwent cross-examination on appeal , the court confirmed and determined that if it was a testimony, if it was offered as testimonial evidence, it was rejected correctly Similarly, when the defendant refused to swear an oath as a witness and himself to cross-examination, it also ruled that if the offer was demonstrative, then the trial court was justified in rejecting it on the grounds that it was irrelevant, as I indicated to the court yesterday. his arm was being offered on may 2 may 12, 1971 to show the condition of his arm on june 5, 1970 defendants condition today or the existence of that scar without establishing a basis as to what the sign The meaning of that scar and how it impacted his physical abilities is something that exists without foundation, it has no probative value in and of itself, if the defense wants to do it as part of an opening statement they will also have to offer something that gives you some value in terms of probative value, what I mean by that is you can offer a picture of the defendant's knee, but just holding a picture won't give you much, but the defendants in terms of their weight of proof because what does that mean in terms of their physical abilities or their limitations?
The fact that the defendant also stands up to tell the jury that he is not guilty is another blatant attempt to get the defendant to address the jury without getting angry. examined is like issuing a blanket denial and then saying you can't ask me any questions in a court of law, your honor when the defendant seeks to testify and issuing a blanket denial that opens the doors t or cross-examination as wide as possible and people are given allows a very extensive and broad cross-examination that the defendant seeks to do in this case and prevent any cross-examination that he seeks to prove his innocence and yet not allow anyone to ask him any question that is completely inappropriate, I'm sure the court is very aware that if he was on prokhor he could get up and say whatever he wanted, not cool, what is his pageview on People vs Wong 8:35? put your page site for it is 1348 and continue to 1349 the celebration 1348 nine gives the bulk of the exposure 1350 gives the ruling is fine any other coming thanks stroman the suggestion that a plea of ​​not guilty puts the defendant under cross examination just isn't the law the plea of ​​not guilty is what sets this trial in motion and puts the burden on people to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it is truly incredible to suggest that jurors will somehow be harmed by hearing the plea of innocence from the defendant himself actually the only person who can plead guilty is the defendant himself and that plea is what sets off this proceeding and we think it's quite appropriate and doesn't open any door to cross-examination just so that the jury watches the defendant and hears his plea of ​​not guilty from his own lips the suggestion that he try ata of some kind of ploy to capitalize on the charisma or celebrity status of the defendant is the opposite is the opposite we don't want this jury to see the defendant in terms of a celebrity, we want them to see him as a human being and that suggests that the greatest need in this case is to do it because there is so much stunning quality in this. the whole process and we think it would be very salutary to remind everyone especially the jury that what is at stake here is simply the freedom of a man a human being and here is Oh Jay Simpson in terms of the lack of basis for the physical capacity of the defendant that will be presented in the course of testimony obviously the opening statement does not present all the evidence it is a preview of what is to come and this is an important piece of evidence that we have I would like to preview for the jury when they appear in the course of the trial there will be substantive testimony from Mr.
Simpson's doctor as to his physical ability to substantiate the physical demonstration when you say demonstrations now you scared me is it an exhibition exhibition or a demonstration presentation two things different good good good I have looked through the cases cited by people and the only cases I could find that were of interest was a case from New York and a Mississippi Supreme Court case dealing specifically with a represented client's request to go directly to ajury motion to allow defendant to address directly to jury motion to allow defendant to show knee injuries or result of healing to jury denied and surgeries allowed All correct advice we need to resolve that the Last few remaining issues at the exhibits and we'll be ready. to go ahead with opening statements mr.
Douglas, thank you, your honor, good morning. Last night, your honor, we were trying to run for a while. Last night, your honor, we were discussing the possibility of making modifications to the sock timeline graphic, which was objected to, as the court will see that we have altered the offending language to reflect the details and the circumstances. from a report that was part of a report of analyzed evidence that I would like to present to the court and that I have already given to the counsel for the opposing party what it basically says, your honor, is that there is a notation that refers to different elements of prove there is a notation for navy/black socks there is this is a trondheim report a reproach oh just answer my question is the 29th of june before yes it is and talk about there is a date dress socks semicolon let's look stop none obvious close stop and we would make it present your honor that this is, in fact, a fair reflection of what we think the evidence is going to show, we would say that that graph is not unduly prejudicial and d suggest that the court should overrule the objections and allow admission of that shot of that shark to whom do you offer that report this is what Your Honor is referring to, this document was apparently prepared for the split hearing to split and Yamauchi Kessler and Mathison they each testified about the process by which they brought out different pieces of evidence and examined it and this was a document that was prepared specifically for that sticking well doesn't answer my question who prepared the report who prepared that report Michele Kessler Greg Matheson and Colleen Yamaguchi is that the index that was prepared the index of evidence is a summary of the evidence analyzed by amp by analysis performed that is the title is ok it is exhibit two in the split hearing the remaining objection your honor would be in response to concerns about the videotapes and the scenes that were mirrored of different officers walking through the crime scene at various times now we have obtained the rest g tape recordings and your honor there was a mistake meant yesterday that the scenes that were shown on the tape that were handed out to people are not things that were taken from CNN but rather a collection of different takes that were received They were from different local media outlets so that we can present these different clips at trial, we can simply lay the groundwork by quoting and bringing in the operators of I believe it's local channels 5 7 11 and 13 who these particular clips were from. cold, that tape has now been turned over to the court and that tape has also been turned over to the people, now we have the tape from San Francisco which had two other irregularities that were not shown on the first date.
He told me Mr. Hodgman that the people would continue to uphold their objection, so what I moved, your honor, is that the court allow the showing of the scenes that were shown yesterday. They are scenes, your honor, that are quite capable of being authenticated in many ways. in many ways they are authenticated because there will be an evidence or a police search where each individual that arrives on the scene first registers with one of the police officers that are there, that search will be an item of evidence and it is possible by showing the scenes and have those depicted there testify to establish clearly when the various parts of the scenes were taken and what kinds of things were occurring it is true your honor that is the scene of the peoples crime it is true your honor they do not have a tape of themselves Crime scene video there are certain discrete acts taking place eg Detective Lang measuring a certain location eg you see Criminalist Fung placing particular evidence tags which you will see though you will see the detectives walking through Detective Van adder and rogers walking around and clearly the blade is there because the body has been removed but the blade remains and shows his your honor the type of meaning that we are going to represent in words helps to provide a visual context to the words that mr.
Cochran is going to talk, he's going to discuss how the evidence will show that there was contamination at the crime scene. So we hope to show images that show that they reflect contamination from the crime scene. They're going to offer evidence, I suppose, your honor. how the crime scene was not contaminated may show that when these scenes were shown all the evidence had been gathered may show or offer evidence that when these scenes were shown it was the next day or the third day after that is the risk that We're going to take with the statements that we're going to make in our opening statement, but whether or not there are visual reflections of certain words, Mr.
Cochran I think he'll very well be able to discuss and talk about how the crime scene was contaminated. and how we hold that these scenes are merely a small reflection of the only available live record showing the conduct of Detectives Vannatter and other detectives at both the Rockingham and Bundy crime scenes. On June 13, your honor, I believe it is the end of my objections to the graphics that people are going to offer and my explanation of the elements that were left over from yesterday. Thanks, Clark, I'm sorry, excuse me. wait a second, okay, miss clark, yes, the court had finalized its ruling yesterday regarding the tape of mr.
Cochran made a motion that when a judgment is entered we don't redo it and we all agreed that what I said yesterday is that if the process if the defense makes the videotape available to them and after reviewing the tape it still maintains that I mean, who knows, after looking at it, you may have changed your mind now that you've had the opportunity that's been presented here. What is his position? We haven't had a chance to see it. They gave it to us this morning when we walked into court. How long are these videotapes mr. Douglas, the first tape was played yesterday, I think in its entirety.
The second tape, which is five or ten minutes worth, contains the three clips that we want to use to open that. Today the five, the first five or ten minutes, yes, in addition to the ones we showed yesterday that the same problem exists now that before we don't have a base in terms of time and time is very important the bloodstains accumulated in a certain point and that is not set with the second tape there is a counter at the bottom of that tape which is very misleading because it looks like all these different pieces of tape are actually one continuous take which is not the case, since the lawyer even admits that considerable editing was done on that tape and people still object, right?
I think we should at least watch the first five or ten minutes to see if it still does. Surely, your honor, it's fine. I'll be happy to pass on to the other expo regarding the sock timeline miss what mr. Douglas is represented before this court is very deceitful and I confronted him this morning and explained that this is not a business record. I must point out to the court in the first place that it was a chart prepared specifically for the Griffin hearing, and the blood division hearing actually at my request because I wanted to see exactly what they planned to do with all the pieces of evidence and what seemed to be enough to a division what was not PCR capable what appeared to be RFLP capable in the box marked comments shows blood search because that is what they were planning to do it had not been done yet these are navy to black socks that if you look at it You're not going to be able to tell anything with the naked eye, I was scheduled for a blood search and it was noted that none were obvious because in a pair of black socks you won't see blood, at best you might see something wet, but after a period of time and it dries up you won't even see that so i was scheduled for a blood search and what mr.
Douglass has in this chart is very misleading because it indicates that they have already looked for blood and that none is obvious, this is exactly the problem is that the jury is out and if Mr. Douglass had spoken to Mr. Matheson, he would tell him to put it there as many of the other items listed in this comments column as a prospective plan you can see in this list it says right above item number twelve shows RFLP possible and in earlier items it shows that RFLP would consume PCR only which is very obvious what this is they're talking about what can be done or what they plan to do it's not that it's been done it hasn't been done so what the lawyer has put in there is completely misleading it's the opposite of what happened ok let's take a look at the videotape and see what's on there the court had a graphic we hadn't seen yet we only saw a Xerox copy of I wanted to address the court later and I think I can better if I have e The chart in front of the court, which was the chart titled Hoaxes, Distortions, that you said I had not lost my copy at the time, Your Honor, there is language on it that I wanted to object to, don't do anything. in that if it is not there will be none but that is the problem of not having everything in court on Friday like the court there you did not tell me that you did not have it in front of you when you asked me to rule on it I apologize to the court I thought yes I mean I can't keep doing these things over and over and over I just ask permission to see the painting as it currently exists I haven't seen the final printout.
All we saw was a representation on an 8 x 10 piece of paper. I'd like to see what the final graph says. Douglas, do we have that available? You know the frame is being assembled right now and will be picked up this morning, but it only reflects this particular frame. Does the court have a copy of this? Robertson, please, I mean I want to address the court on certain aspects of this chart, that would be great, well, I can't, I can't see the whole picture, neither can you, okay, we're focused on that. little with respect to the first entry mark fuhrman and the gloves indicates plural at no point did fuhrman mark so attesting that the chart is misleading with respect to that language people object that the use of the plural never occurred secondly Vannatter guarantees the la search warrant and the circumstances of the search are irrelevant to the trial before Trier in fact it is a legal matter that the court finds it inappropriate to make an opening statement, let alone at trial.
I would also mention to the court that I thought the court ruled that Mark Fuhrman could not be mentioned an opening statement correct people also object on that basis Philips statement to the coroner we are not following procedure but we are asking for a favor a lifted statement or out of context, that's a hearsay from a transcript issued by the coroner, not a statement made, not a report made by Ron Phillips and it's misleading and misleading on that basis, okay, okay, ma'am. Clarke, before you get too much for the council, this is not an argument, this is not an opening statement statement, good morning, your honor, your honor on this matter, I understood yesterday that people had a chance to see everything what we did. show them this and miss clark indicates she had no objection we don't want to be argumentative this is over we thought an abundance of court venues caution because we anticipate she might change her mind we have another chart that I think the court will hopefully find it less argumentative.
I would like the court to review it. I think this is basically a summary of the conduct and I wanted an inquiry from the court regarding mr. Furman Court didn't say we couldn't talk about Mark Fuhrman. I understand and stand firm. What you indicated was that regarding the Kathleen Bell incident, I think you said, but you never said that we couldn't talk about Mark Fuhrman. It's imaginary, okay. I want to make sure it's clear. Can I show this to Mr. Hodgman and then give his honor a copy of this let's assume this is a change to this dock you have to change this dock place it there place it in regards to these items occurred remember that as part of the exhibits we will have a video clip of detective fuhrman before miss clark objects to the use of the words gloves i will stipulate hit make a glove but still we are going to play that clip regarding detective phillips we have a transcript we pass this yes sir that is coming we no i want to take nothing out of context people will be able to see exactly the transcripts nothing is taken out of context regarding Detective Van Atta where the claim is made that Simpson had left an unexpected flight to Chicago that we are talking about the issue is not relitigated that the court places from the entrance, but to indicate that within the first first contact with the justice system pe end at 10:45in 612 a lie was told in that warrant under oath that they didn't tell the truth and we have that and when you saw kato kaelin ER's statement yesterday regarding securing crime scene documentation and preservation everyone was well aware that trainee missoula it was her third crime scene she was basically the officer in charge there regarding the bronco we have litigated this lawyer it's been known for some time we did it and their innocuous language started they didn't give that special care to the presentation of evidence that we showed all of this yesterday your honor they reviewed it they had no objection the DNA testing we've constantly said they can talk all they want about DNA but all the DNA testing went through the LAPD before going anywhere else lab and we think we're entitled to talk about it, we have a chart that we've already passed on OJ's blood vial and this mysterious blood vial and it's Sokka ad where he went instead of properly reserving and finally the question of socks whether or not there weren't any obvious ones on the socks.
I disagree with my learning adversary that blood is red. I will be dark red. It's not black like socks and you might. I suggest seeing it. I think the question is what the prosecution thinks they have. a theory and if we don't agree with that theory they think they're always right that's what a trial is about that's why we listen to judges they're not always right that's why sometimes they lose cases and therefore Therefore, they are not always right. the jury will make that determination and this idea of ​​protecting this jury that's what it's going to do we didn't tell us yesterday about doing our job and that's when the system works best Your Honor if you don't do your job we do our job they do their job we do dont miss the clock to do the job for the jury they will do their job and you will do your job and i promise we will do our job judge and that is what you asked us to do that is all we are trying to do here this is a man we have claimed from the start is wrongfully accused and we are in the fight of their lives and so this is not an easy sunny game and we are very serious about this we don't be argumentative and we just want to detail and we looked at this last night even though she went through this we think we explained this and I think it addresses all the concerns your honor and I think certainly a statement of ape ture one may be excluded from which is our theory of the case.
I agree, so what we're doing now is a lot more than usual. Judge. They're getting a full preview of the stuff we hope to use. ok thanks let me see everything i have to consider and then ok i would like to see the video thank you does this contain anything? No, your honor, this picks up pretty much where she left off the other yesterday. The bodies have been removed, but the coroner is still there and Mr. Fung is leaving his tags mrs. Robertson says we wish to show an opening there's a bit more after this but all is well Ms Clark I'll hear your objections first regarding the videotape your honor yes again same fundamental issues that we have are with respect to time if we don't have the authentication in terms of time and that's critical in terms of evidence collection the inference that the defense will try to draw is that all the evidence collected by LAPD was tainted in some way by the method of the actions shown on the tape if the evidence has already been collected when these people are shown in the positions shown on the video then there is indeed no impact and the intended inference they are trying to make is outright misleading to the jury and that's one thing an opening statement is not allowed to do to either side people are not trying to tell the defense how to judge their case the p People ask this court just to make sure that the jury is not misled into getting the truth into understanding what the evidence really is is not twist and is not distortion and is not half truths or statements taken out of context but the truth and the problem with a video like this is that we have no way of knowing when it was fired and the inference the defense seeks to draw from it may be completely false, in which case the jury begins the case with a complete misconception about the conditions under which the evidence was collected and that it is a very harmful thing and that is why the defense, of course, seeks to do it.
I get it, but it's not appropriate. The jury deserves to get the truth and understand what the evidence is. sock chart and the conduct chart yes sir conduct I think the trial saw i have your honor i have addressed that father again he is totally misleading regarding the blood search regarding the chart now the new one is even worse than the other first of all repeats the misleading and completely false inference made about the blood record they seek to argue in disregard of reality and disregard for the truth the truth is that it was that it was programmed for a blood record that they seek to infer of this is that it was already done and neither was obvious and that is exactly one hundred and eighty degrees opposite of the truth so it is a complete falsehood regarding Mark Fuhrman and the gloves again it is false they state that they put on the plural which he never said Mark Fuhrman take his statement out of context there is a lengthy conversation between him and the lawyer in which he refers to a glove he saw on Ron Goldman's foot and says that he repeatedly and yet takes When a statement is taken out of context they seek to draw inferences from it it is argumentative it is not an opening statement and it is misleading and unfair because it is taken out of context the same would happen to Ron Phillips to the coroner of course these are taken out of context how the advice argued otherwise when you have a long transcript of statements that have explanatory information both before and after you take, you have and have seen it take out beat and that is what the lawyer has done by taking everything out of its proper context and pasting it into a chart and again it is argumentative regarding the van adder warrant that statement is irrelevant we are talking about some language in a search warrant that is appropriate for the court to rule on that is not important for a jury to show up which is not appropriate for a jury to appear, the jury must be the judge of fact to determine if the defendant is guilty or innocent, not if the search was adequate or inadequate that is a legal argument that goes to the court, not the jury, that statement is inappropriate and it is also argumentative regarding the preservation of crime scene evidence that the defense visits if they say The Apprentice en Andrea Missoula Andrea Missoula was not in charge she was a trainee being supervised by Dennis Fund so this is false.
This is a false statement. misleading. I thought the court ruling related to Mark Fuhrman was that neither party could bring it up, that it was just Kathleen Val, the Kathleen bill impeachment issue regarding that we had a lot of time regarding the elements . We didn't give it special attention that it's also misleading to put in quotes like it came from a manual of some sort which we know isn't true and is argumentative yes it's true all the evidence went through LAPD no objection to that regarding all the blood unaccounted for that's argumentative we haven't seen any evidence of that if counsel thinks he can lay a foundation during the course of this trial that's certainly appropriate for argument but not appropriate for opening statement and again in his argumentative self I am also too much is the court very well you finished with your comments yes your honor and thank you mr.
Captain Carvin, like your honor, will bear with you, your honor at all times. Your honor, in this regard, first of all, let me point out again that this is an opening statement, your honor, where do they have their theories and do we know that Didn't we say they shouldn't? they don't have their theories we think we have facts but it certainly depends on us having certain interpretations what we think is the evidence as the court and stated it correctly we are allowed to talk about those things if you look at this chart sometimes You know that people shouldn't objectively have anything to say, and in this case, your honor, the issue was considered with regard to the use of the word gloves.
I don't want to mislead anyone, I'll take the S off with respect to Detective Phillips. that we're going to have available the court is where we can use that respect to Detective Vannatter we're not really getting anything as I said it's about credibility and in regards to and this is where the attorney who is supposed to know your case needs to review his own documents I like that the court see this in regards to officer Missoula we have a forum 9400 174 31 that says oh I see officer in charge named assistant Missoula named deceased we don't do this I'd be happy to take a look at that's your way now that we don't make these things up and with regards to the field of special attention, it says that at least in quotes that's from the LAPD forum, your honor, remember yesterday. when we brought up the forum we brought that up the way they didn't check the appropriate box when the Bronco was left basically unattended for all those months now I could see the DNA test and go through LAPD yes your honor regarding road blood gunner again that's our belief based on all the documents that we've been given at Discovery and you know if it goes wrong we're going to look at that so we're going to say that this is based on the documents that we've received it's not difficult that You manage.
That's our position judge and she can't tell us what our position is or what it should be, you need to understand that up front and then regarding the socks we'll accept whatever language your honor says on that but again if look at this particular formula this form is titled OJ Simpson summary of evidence analyzed by analysis performed we are using their own forms their own form gender by analysis performed and di ce below that which is obvious and that's all we've said we took it's own form so you know there was a recent movie your honor in which there was a line that I think was very appropriate in this case I think they were some good men we keep hearing about the truth I don't think they can handle the truth that's what Jack Nicholson said but you don't want to hear the truth and that's what I think is very appropriate in this situation that is exactly what is happening here, well, there is another thing I would like to say, something worthwhile sometimes. your honor given to the bad guys even the bad guys to tell the truth of the case your honor we certainly weren't the bad guys in this case your honor your honor regarding something else he asked us to do at the end of the day and I think this is in the page 25 of volume 2 of my instruction in volume 11 of the reporters' transcript of the proceedings of Thursday, July 7, 1994.
I asked the court for permission to read this is mr. Shapiro questioning how much blood you took from mr. Simpson answers the about eight CC question when he says he didn't roughly measure the amount and said it could have been seven point nine it could have been eight point one I just looked at the syringe and I looked at about eight CC he would ask us to find that for you and we i'll give the secretary but all we're asking your honor is to stop haggling and let's start with the opening statements and we've previewed everything and i think it's time to sort out okay thank you okay it holds the objection to the use of the videotape, the argument has been that the concession has been that these are fragments and that the defense is willing to take the risk, an argument that they cannot establish a precise basis. the problem is that it leads to the danger of misleading the jury and I am not willing to take that risk during the course of an opening statement to uphold the objection as to the sock chart the language to come that is on the sock c Hart comes from a summary of reports and the evidence is not the report itself.
The objection is sustained as to the language. Blood. Search for blood. None obvious in all other respects. some of these quotes are out of context and there is a danger that this will lead to the jury as a result, so the objection stands. Robertson reminded me that I did not rule on the defendant's photograph and to the formally dressed ladies, I know I did not mark it on my listener, ma'am. Robertson indicated that I didn't dismiss the objection on that in that he's voided for the rest of the entire record, okay solicitor take care of that let me just let the solicitor know tomorrow one of our kidnapped jurors has a doctor's appointment and we'll be up tomorrow at 3:30 3:30 to accommodate that and I would also like to speak to the attorney at some point regarding his proposal regarding a view of the scene when I get the chance ok anything else before you invite jurors to join us and the new graphic will be the next of the people to put a copy of it up for the record service, yes sir?
Hodgman, thank you and good morning, your honor, first of all, there's a matter that we'll need to address in the sidebar.I think the court can handle it quickly, but it is a point of information that I think the entire Council should know before proceeding with the opening. statement So, before we do that, your honor, before we do that, I'm sorry, it was yesterday that we raised a discovery concern regarding the defense this morning. I have been provided with another defense witness statement, a memorandum from a Mr. William Pavlik dated November 2, 1994. Yesterday I asked the court to order the defense to turn over all discovery that is in process, so to speak, because we don't want to be surprised any more now that i've asked mr douglas this morning is this still sir any other witness statement they have regardless of age and i think his response was that it might not be final on that. correct mr.
Douglas, okay, I'll let you speak for yourself, but what I would like the court to do is remind the defense of their obligation to provide us with witness statements in a timely manner, we are asking that everything be discussed as I did yesterday and I would like that order to be clear to the defense. There was a specific reference made yesterday to an interview of Scott Matsuda whose name was added to the witness list and I specifically asked my investigator for that particular report and asked him to check to make sure none of the names that were on it were some report that had not been served that was the report that was given to me that was the report that I delivered and again I will endeavor to go through my files to review the other attorney's files and make sure that there are no other reports still pending that have not been handed over and if I find it I'll give it to Mr.
Hodgman, okay, as his report. I would like you to report to the court tomorrow morning, mr. Douglas as for that part of the search, that's fine, mr. Husband, can we come closer now? Thanks. We will be in recess until 10:30 and begin opening statements at 10:30. Simpson is again in court with his lawyer Mr. Shapiro Mr. Allman Mr. Cochran Mr. Douglas Mr. Bailey people represented by Miss Clark mr. Darden and Mr. Hodgman the jury is absent deputy magneri oh could we have the jury please ok counsel at the hearing please be seated good morning ladies and gentlemen let's start with the opening statements made by the lawyers in the case as we remind you of the instructions I gave you yesterday that any statement made to you by the lawyers during the course of their opening statements is not evidence and should not be regarded as such by you.
These opening statements are normally given by lawyers to give you sort of an overview of the evidence that they intend to present is to give you a roadmap, if you will, on how to evaluate the evidence, as you know this case is going to be relatively long and By necessity, some of this evidence will be presented to you out of chronological order. or logical order, so they must explain the case they intend to present. It's okay, both parties are prepared to move on. Calculon Clark, okay, people want to make an opening statement, okay, you can continue, mr.
Darden thank you Your Honor Judge Ito mr. Cochran Mr. Shapiro and Dean Holman to my colleague sitting here today before you and to the actual parties an interest in this case the Brown family the Goldman family and the Simpson family and to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury good morning I think it's fair to say that I have the hardest job in town today, except for the job you have, your job may be a little harder, but your job and mine have one central focus, one goal, and that goal is justice, obviously. this is going to be a long trial and i want you to know how much we appreciate your presence on the panel we appreciate the personal sacrifices you are making by being kidnapped we understand that it can be difficult and i would like to thank you in advance for keeping the promises you made to us when you were selected for the jury initially promised to be fair promised to be open minded and promised to listen and see and carefully consider all the evidence in the case and promised to find this case pa to reach a verdict in this case solely on the basis of the evidence and the law given to him by Judge Ito and he promised to do it based on the law based on the facts any evidence and nothing else he promised us that he had no hidden agenda he just wanted to see justice done and she promised us that she would do everything she could under the law to see justice done and so I thank you for that and I thank you in advance for the verdict that you will at some point settle on this case and we are here today obviously to solve a problem to solve a question a question that has been on the minds of people across the country these last seven months has certainly been on the minds and my people in Richmond California and friends in Fayetteville Georgia and across the country and everyone wants to know and everyone I know often asks me if OJ Simpson really killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman well finally ladies and gentlemen I'm here in front to you this morning to answer that question and you will answer that question from the witness stand and from the evidence that you will see in this case and from the evidence and when you see the evidence and when you hear from the witnesses and when you put it all together and consider the In totality of the circumstances in this case the answer will also be clear to you the answer to the question is yes the evidence will show that the answer to the question is yes Oh Jake Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and I'm sure you're wondering why what the trial is going on and I'm sure you're wondering why at this point, if the judge told you that the opening statements are no longer evidence, the opening statements are given by the attorneys and in an opening statement we inform the jury of what we think the evidence will show in this case we think the showing evidence but we are lawyers we are not witnesses we are not under oath nothing of what what we told you is evidence the things we tell you today are not The things you should bring to the jury room and deliberations we must bring to the jury room and deliberations the evidence in the case the testimony of the bench the evidence admitted to the jury the trial the instructions the court gave you and when you look at all of that when you go back and reflect on the testimony and the evidence and everything you heard and saw in this case, you will know why you killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and when I give you the answer if he did and you stop considering you think why would he why would he not OJ Simpson not the OJ Simpson we think we don't know the OJ Simpson we've seen over the years but that raises another question and that question is did you know oj Simpson, we watched him play football for USC, we watched him fresh at UCLA and play in the Rose Bowl, we watched him win the Heisman Trophy, he may be the greatest running back in NFL history, we watched him leave turnstiles and chairs and run . the A planes and the Hertz commercials and we saw him with a 50 inch afro and Naked Gun thirty three and a half and we've seen him over and over and we come to think we know what we've been seeing ladies and gentlemen is the face public the public person the faith of the athlete the face of the gate of the application it is not the after who is on trial here today ladies and gentlemen it is not that public face it is his other face like many men in public like many men in public have a public image a public person a public side a public life and they also have a private side a private life private face and that's the face we'll expose to you in this trial, the other side of OJ Simpson besides you' We've never met before, we want to expose you in this trial and show you in this trial that other face, the face that you had behind the locks, the doors and the walls in Rockingham, that other face, that of Nicole Brown, you met almost every day of your life to adult life the one she found during the last moments of her adult life the same face ronald goldman found during the last moments of his life when we look and look behind that public face the public face of the man who sits here in court today you will see a different face but the face you will see and the man you will see will be the face of a beater a wife beater an abuser a controller you will see Ron's face from the murderer of Ron and Nicole to understand what happened in Bundy we need to examine his la defendant's relationship to Nicole because when we do we can discern that we can see a motive we can see his motive for killing his ex-wife and I present to you ladies and gentlemen that as the trial progresses and you hear the evidence in this case that motive will remain Of course, he killed Nicole for only one reason, not because he hated her, he didn't hate Nicole, he didn't kill her because he no longer loved her, because his mom did it, he killed him for a reason, he killed her out of jealousy. he killed because he couldn't have her and if he couldn't have her he didn't want anyone else, he killed her to control control of her as an ongoing theme while continuation was the central focus of his entire relationship by killing the coldest. defend and assume full control over the act of control by killing her no one else could get past no one but him and he killed Ron Goldman and he killed Ron Goldman for another reason he killed Ron Goldman because he got in the way he killed Nicole because she had a problem with that as men and women sometimes have in relationships they have a problem and this defendants problem the man in the courtroom i think he laid out his problem and he said then and he said on other occasions and i quote he said while he was standing next to that launcher while standing over Kota's body, my problem, but it wasn't really love, ladies and gentlemen, and this will be reflected in the evidence and the evidence will establish that it wasn't actually love that did this accused. alf and nicole brown it wasn't love it was obsession he became obsessed with her and his obsession was so great that he developed a need to control her and his need to control she realized she couldn't hold her and she killed him because to let her go would mean losing control of her letting her go with Ron Goldman or someone else would mean losing control he couldn't have her or anyone else now the evidence in this case will establish that the man in the courtroom this defendant is an extremely controlling and possessive man and as I said before, control and possessiveness was a single dominant theme throughout their relationship and he controlled her in a variety of ways I am the defendant in Nicole I first met her she was just 18 he was almost 30 she shared an apartment he owned a man she waited tables in a restaurant he was a millionaire no one had ever heard of on the cold front but he was one of the most recognized men in America but after he got to know her little by little b began to control her shared an apartment with a friend got her own apartment bought her things he gave her things when she was 19 she was driving a Porsche she got it for him he began to have control over her and for all year throughout their relationship he maintained that control over her that financial control the evidence will show that nicole never really had a job she never really worked she never really operated a business she never really had an income of her own throughout her adult life this man she got she got from the defendant people can sometimes be bald and young people can sometimes be easily fooled Nicole is a very young woman if she is a woman when she met this defendant the man he sat in the courtroom, and as the years passed, he became more in control. he won the more abusive he became as you listen to the evidence in this case you are going to hear evidence about domestic abuse and domestic violence talking about bullying physical abuse wif e-hitting public humiliation while listening to the trial and while listening to this evidence to see this evidence , keep in mind that all these different types of abuse we are all different methods to control her, let me continue with the evidence that will be shown in this case that he mentally abused her stripped her of her self-esteem this defendant dictated the way Nicole dressed he dictated the way she did her hair and when she didn't like her appearance ceara criticized her he humiliated her to the point that she would cry if he didn't like her shoes and she would go out and buy shoes this is what i want you to earn where this was seen so she was not a barbie doll ladies and gentlemen the evidence will show that he was so controlling that he tried to define his idea he tried to define Finding out who she was when she was pregnant with him and she weighed the evidence will show that this defendant was so abusive that he called her her names, called her fat, called her a pig and he. he did that he is in the presence of his family and in the presence of his friends and he is really dependent we are going to show you and this trial and by doing these things and by throwing these insults stripped her of her self-esteem and when you were controlling someone financially she has no identity he has it he controls it the evidence will show that this defendant this man in the courtroom was a very controlling and possessive man and that is a pervasive theme throughout his relationship it was his control over Nicole Brown but he did more than he did something else than to demean her in the presence of others, tried to isolate her at timesof some people who got close he got jealous and he got so jealous that it got to the point where she wouldn't and if time passed and he got jealous and more and more jealous he would even insist that she not be around certain men he started isolating his ladies and gentlemen when their friends would come over her girlfriends would come over and when he felt she was spending too much time with those girlfriends he talked to the girlfriends he let her know he didn't like them hanging around he dissuaded a girlfriend from going around tried to isolate her from other people and when you isolate someone and when you strip someone of their self-esteem and when you establish their identity, you have to control them and the evidence showed in this case that this man is an extremely possessive and controlling and that he is an extremely obsessive individual when he got to Nicole and his obsession manifested in the things he did to control her but demeaning her and holding the strings of c devious and isolating her by defining who she was she would see and who she would not see and who her friends would be and who they would not be was not all this defendant did to control this woman there are more powerful forms of control there is force there is violence there is fear her intimidation and you will hear the testimony, you will see evidence that in his quest to control Nicole, this defendant used all of these things, he used fear, he used intimidation and he used violence and instilled so much fear in her, ladies and gentlemen, come into a room and Nicole would be there. and a moment before he walked in, she would be the most charming person there, she is relaxed, but when he walked in, her demeanor completely changed as time passed, the mere presence of her became intimidating to her .
I mentioned earlier that they met when she was around 18 years old. in 1977 and they dated for eight years and finally got married in 1985 and the marriage was a stormy marriage and it was a marriage marked by acts of violence and that violence will always be followed by an apology people to apologize give her jewelry fires flowers promised to keep control of himself and vowed not to do it again and then those acts of violence will be followed by further acts of violence and it became a cycle of violence apologies to quiet and calm period that violence and apologies calm and calm violence apologies called quiet a cycle of violence characterized your relationship characterized your marriage a domestic violence ladies and gentlemen that is a difficult topic because domestic violence is something that happens behind doors and walls it happens in the bedroom and inside the house and in places where public domestic violence it is a private matter usually while it is happening and therefore makes it difficult for But the violence did occur and it makes it difficult to get evidence and get proof that the relationship is a violent relationship, but we have that proof, we have proof, we have proof that you will hear testimony in a violent marriage that this defendant had with Nicole Brown in 1985 the police responded to the defendants' home in Rockingham in response to a call and when they arrived they were greeted by Nicole she was upset her face was swollen she was approaching the spirits she She told these people we had a fight after the fight.
I was trying to leave and when I tried to leave the defendant grabbed a baseball bat and he took that baseball bat and smashed my car windshield and while they were looking around. their law enforcement officers looked to the right and saw a white mercedes-benz 450 SL and the windshield was smashed and right at the pendant they left the house and offered an explanation well the police didn't arrest them and that's not an act of violence physical towards Nicole is or is it maybe Nicole Brown was there the witness violently disappeared in his vehicle and if you married someone and you love someone and you have a fight with them and they take a baseball bat and do something like that to a of your prized possessions the evidence will show that this was a message was an indication there was a warning of what happened next it was a warning that what happened to his mercedes-benz could also happen to you and it happened to nicole, not with him baseball bat, but just as that Mercedes was smashed and dented, you will hear evidence, you will hear testimony.
I will see witness witnesses in this case regarding an incident that occurred on January 1, 1989. It was almost four in the morning on January 1 when the 911 operator received a phone call from Rockingham and that operator will be here to testify in court. and that operator will be here to authenticate the operator comes up and when the tape plays listen very carefully because if you listen carefully in the background you will hear a woman screaming and you will hear something else and you will hear the sound this defendant this man beating this woman you will hear the sound of his hand hitting his face you were here the sound this defendant hitting his wife but the police arrived they arrived in Rockingham and they answer that phone call and the Cold never got around to telling the 9111 operator to come help me or anything for him style.
All he did was yell and the operator could hear him yelling. He operated on her to hear her being struck and he advised LAPD units to respond to 316 North Rockingham. You can hear the sound of a woman being beaten right now and the officers arrived in Rockingham a short time later and when they did they rained down the puzzle at the security door and as they did so they saw someone run out of the bushes run out of the darkness into their address and this person they saw with Nicole and Nicole ran out of the dark wearing nothing but sweatpants and a bra running towards the offices and she was covered in mud and she was dirty and she was dirty and she ran towards the officers and as she ran she told them they ran to the officers she was screaming and screaming she's going to kill me she's going to kill me and the officers stood there at four in the morning she came out in a bra her sweatpants are covered in mud she just got a call there's a woman in rockingham being beaten now she runs out of the dark and the mud and the bushes and presses the button on the security door and she runs through the door as she collapses in the officer's arms the whole time she yells she's going to kill me she's going to kill me and the officer said who's going to kill you and she said old Jay is going to kill me watched me and the officers lead the group alive over time one of the officers the senior officer there looked at his neck and what he saw startled him in his neck he could see a hand print a hand print around his neck but it was then that the defendant left t In the house he was wearing nothing but his bathrobe and he did not address his wife at that time and did not ask the police how she was doing or if she was okay which will show the evidence about what What you will hear in this case is that he demeaned and humiliated her further yelled at the officers in the presence of Nicole his wife I already have two women in my bed this was his wife this is what he told these officers they were strangers together this is what who yelled towards the police the officers were a la from the door of the wall and the defendant at that time was on the other side the officer said mr.
Simpson, we're going to have to put you under arrest, it seems your wife has been beaten, so please come back to the house, get dressed and come with us, we'll take you to the station, well, the evidence would show that it didn't sit with you well and he replied that the police had been here eight times before and now they are going to arrest me for this eight times that is what the defendant said that the police had been there eight times before and as he said, you are going to arrest me for this has been - i told the officers this is a family matter that's what the evidence would show me defend the officers are told this is a family man and he FY do you want to make a big deal out of this? we can handle it it became apparent that the officers did not like the way he had handled things up to that point and they insisted he get dressed and told him he was in custody and they were going to take him to the station ok this was OJ Simpson and he he did ge he didn't get dressed but he didn't go to the police station he jumped in his Bentley and sped away and they chased him they didn't catch him and he ran away the next day he went to the Rose Bowl but despite this despite 89 what it happened on

january

1, 1989 despite the mercedes-benz incident in 1985 she stayed she stayed with them and i am not suggesting and the evidence will not suggest that every day of their merit their relationship was filled with violence that is not what that we're suggesting here but we're suggesting and the evidence will show that there was a cycle of violence the cycle of violence and the dominant issue and that relationship and in that cycle and the ultimate goal was always controlled control long after the '89 incident after that night the relationship changed a bit she was worried and the defendant was worried the defendant is a public man and was concerned about his public image and in the public domain and in the public media in 1989 he was interviewed by Roy Firestone Firestone on ESPN and during that interview mr.
Firestone questioned the defendant about that incident on the morning of January 1 to defend him. The game left him and here you see that interview and in that interview the defendant said that it was some kind of mutual fight. She was wrong. He was wrong today. No. big deal and that's what he told the press and the public play things down but you will hear testimony from investigators employed at the district attorney's office and they will tell you about a day just a few months ago when they drilled a hole in a safe deposit box from Nicolle and they will tell you about the day they recovered photographs taken of Nicole's injuries in 1989 and they will also tell you about the recovery of some letters that the defendant wrote to Nicole after 1989 that the The account that the defendant gave to the press and to the media and to the public was not the same one that he gave to Nicole in those letters during that apology for the apology for the contrition phase the phase he was going through and the letter that he wrote to nicole, he apologized for hurting her, he said the same thing you've been saying all along which is i'll do better we can get over this and that happens in bad relationships and then abusive relationships don't you know? and put things? bad bad things happen it's always someone's fault but no one wants to take the blame and in this situation and the evidence will show that what the defendant did was he made these promises like he was robbed on you know how the deep asian ship I'll do it better there was a gift sorry get back into it and if you are the other person in the closed position like she was and this will be reflected in the evidence she wanted to believe she wanted to believe her marriage could survive she wanted to hope and he gave her hope for a while because this is a cycle and that's why he hit her on

january

1 he privately admitted in his letters that he was responsible and apologized and gave her things and tried to make it all better and he told her he gave hope and tied her up again and she stayed she stayed because she had hope and because she wanted to believe that January 1, 1989 would be the last time he would abuse her there is a clear mindset hearing the evidence in this case something very sad and it becomes very evident they met when she was 18 and he was almost 30 and in 1992 they divorced she was only 33 and she died when she was almost 35 throughout her adult life she stole most of her adult life her life The concept of marriage in a relationship was defined by this defendant as adult love.
The notion of adult love from her for 15 years was what this defendant gave and abused throughout that relationship. tied up to the defendant tied up coal boy while she stayed and stayed and people stay in those situations those abusive relationships for years and years until one or two things happen, one that they just can't take anymore one or two until they they just can't take it anymore and they wake up to reality and finally in 1992 Nicole woke up to the reality of her situation and in January 1992 she moved out of Rockingham, left the defendant and filed for divorce well this didn't sit well with her client didn't like it he liked this he didn't like the fact that Nicole left his house and went to live in another house far away from him there is the issue of control how could he control her she was not right there with everyone and she did not take it well and she lost 20 to 25 pounds like that and almost daily she would call her sisters Dominika Tanya and Denise and call him sweetheart and her father would sometimes cry on the phone he would call him and even yes and complain to him and you know he would tell her how much he loved her and that I loved her to back he had used them trying and roper backing up well she couldn't let him go not completely I mean how could she?
She has been under her control for 15th. She was 16, so she didn't go too far. She rented a house in Brentwood on Gretna Green. They saw each other. They had children together. Lovely children. the loss of nicole he couldn't deal with not having her there he couldn't deal with the loss of control and he couldn't help but chase her you're cured you'll hear testimony in this case but nicole's mother and you should tell her about some of the phone conversations you had with the accused in 1992 and some even more recent. You know a conversation. he told her.
She told him. He said. All my friends tell me that I should leave her alone. get on with my own life and whenThe Mrs. Brown said why don't you do that let her go if you let her go and maybe she'll come back you know I can you know I can't help it I can't let it go he couldn't let her go he couldn't help but chase her he couldn't leave her alone he couldn't handle the loss of control and because she had left her home and moved somewhere else and established her own home or just her own home and began to establish her own relationships he did the only thing he could do to take control to try to regain control to trying to find out what was going on with her and then stopped in Stockton when she left Rockingham in January 1992 and set up a new home in Gretna Green also in Brentwood started dating a man named Keith Keith the spear who and got a babysitter for his two kids every time Keith and Nicole went out not always but enough he would show up they went to a night club and Keith will tell him about this they will be here to testify the defendants they showed up, they went to a restaurant called the meetup that had just opened Nicole and Keith and a few other friends there had a table and they started to eat dinner and as they were sitting there eating dinner and that will show up in the evidence and in the testimony and what he did was walked into the restaurant saw Nicole and Keith and their other friends went to another table the chair was facing away well he grabbed the chair turned it around sat looking at Keith and Nicole while Keith I'll be here to tell you that that was an experience terribly intimidating.
Why was there another incident at the Mezzaluna. Nicole was there. Keith was there. The accused appeared suddenly. He drove in front of the restaurant. He got out of the car, walked up to the table with a receipt, put his hands up and said, I'm OJ Simpson and she's still my wife when she filed for divorce. I moved out of her house and there's more and you'll hear about the other incidents there's more evidence of harassment in this case and you will hear that there was one night when Keith and Nicole went to a comedy show and after the show they went to Nicole's house in Gretna Green, it was around 3:00 in the morning in her living room the kids the kids were upstairs sleeping it's 3 in the morning and Keith and Nicole made love on the couch but they weren't alone there was someone watching there was someone looking out the window it was a defendant at 3 o'clock in the morning he was looking at Through the window of Kohl's watching her make love to another man he walked right into her house and he was beside himself and he was angry and he said some very mean things but one of the things he said to Keith and Nicole was that he said I watched you last night I watched you when I saw all the evidence will show that this is behavior to say the least but the evidence will also show that this is all part of this cycle it is all part of this dominant theme in your relationship this is all part of your need to know everything about it to to know where she is - no, she is with her to know what she is doing to control her she did not hit Keith and he did not hit Nicole he was still looking so she would not know and to control her he had to confront her with what he knew to intimidate her and prevent her from knowing to do it again it's all about control well over the months nicole still wanted to believe and they would try to reconcile and fail and try again and nicole was as much a part as the defendant but there was a situation in october 1993 one incident to another control incident broke through the back door of her home in Gretna Green forced the door into her home without her permission without her knowledge and confronted and scared her or scared her and scared her so much that she called 911 police assistance and you will hear that you recorded the tape of that 9-1-1 call and you will meet the 9-1-1 operator and you will hear the defendant saw Keith and Nicole have sex in april 1992 and when you listen to the tape of 911 oct 1993 but that night when a tape was a revealing glimpse into their relationship that is for sure and also an example of the private side of this defendant his private face the other man the man in the courtroom the man who is on trial here today and you were here in the cold talking on the phone with the operator and as you listen to her you can't help but tell by the tone of her voice and the things she says that she is a tough woman but she is also without trespassing and intimidation and not only that but she feels that her situation has no remedy the evidence will show that by October 1993 Nicole her situation was desperate and she was defenseless back in 1989 the defendant said that the po licia had been in the house eight times before she had never done anything Nicole said the same thing over the phone to the 911 operator in 1993 the situation was desperate and she was helpless and it can be inferred from the evidence that Nicole Brown expected or did not expect someone to do something for this defendant because he hit her there was no help and she didn't expect any help but you will listen to that phone call and you will listen to the defendant you will get a real sense of the speed that he instilled in her and you hit her that day she didn't hit her and she didn't hit her no he went by the house to see who was there but he didn't hurt him that day she still stayed put they remained involved not only in the sense that he was the father of their children but they still tried to reconcile and during the months after October 1993 they tried get together and failed they tried to get together and failed and in May a very nice gift a jewel and they tried to reconcile for lack of a better description, but the evidence cia will show that it was a very brief attempt because a few days later, Nicole left him and realized the true reality of her situation.
She could no longer be bought. She would not live like this and the evidence will show that she let the defendant know that it was over this is it so long and this was significant in the mind of this defendant ladies and gentlemen it was something that had never happened before he did did. things for her he would try to appease her by giving him things and she would accept those things and they would make up but not this day this day she could not be appeased she could not be bought she could not be bribed she had had

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact